Merged: Why do you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence ?

User Name

Remember Me?

Password

Notices

IMPORTANT: JREF Forums is now the International Skeptics Forum. If you are a past member of the JREF Forums you must agree to the new terms and conditions to post, send PMs, or continue to use the forum as a member. You can view them here, or you will be presented with them when you try to make a post or PM or similar.

Your private information was removed in transferring to the new forum. If you'd like to import it please see the instructions in this thread to approve transfer.
If you are having problems accessing the Forum you can contact Darat at isforum@internationalskeptics.com, please include your username and forum email address in any email.
NOTE:** TAPATALK access is currently disabled **. This is just while we work out how to ensure people have to agree to the T&Cs before posting here via Tapatalk

Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Location: ...not where I seemed, nor was calculated to be...but no-one need worry...

Posts: 12,486

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

no, not a campfire anecdotes, but a fact that occured in my presence.

...or so you assert. Might you be so kind as to explain why your unsupported assertion of an anecdote about a parlour trick is the reason you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence? Just to stay on topic, and all...

__________________"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze

Location: ...not where I seemed, nor was calculated to be...but no-one need worry...

Posts: 12,486

Originally Posted by dafydd

The duck tap danced and sang the Lord's praises in my presence. Fact. A goose nearby was possessed by the Devil at the same moment and took issue with the duck. Fact.

Heretic! The duck was obviously performing soft shoe, not tap...

__________________"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze

Existence cannot be addressed outside the study of ontology. Any other study is regarding phenomena already existing, not the origin of their existence.

I am aware of it, it doesn't provide a theory for our existence. Only an explanation of how our bodies developed on this planet. Similarly any other explanation of how things develop in nature does not explain existence.

Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project (that mapped the human DNA structure) said that one can "think of DNA as an instructional script, a software program, sitting in the nucleus of the cell."

Perry Marshall, an information specialist, comments on the implications of this.
"There has never existed a computer program that wasn't designed...[whether it is] a code, or a program, or a message given through a language, there is always an intelligent mind behind it."

DNA is not a computer code, can you take a computer program and throw it into a batch of chemicals and will it self organize into a computer?

but to do so, they need to be programmed to do so.....who wrote the instruction program in the cell ?

There is no " instruction program in the cell ".

And you can't magically produce any such "instruction program" by quoting the religious beliefs of barking mad creationists who preach on the internet.

The reason you are objecting so strongly to me correcting you on your misuse of the word "information" is because your entire argument of ID rests on you trying to claim that “living” cells, which are simply bundles of chemical molecules, somehow hear the voice of invisible supernatural gods.

As I said above, you and other religious fanatics may hear voices, but simple organic chemicals do not hear voices.

Existence cannot be addressed outside the study of ontology. Any other study is regarding phenomena already existing, not the origin of their existence.

I am aware of it, it doesn't provide a theory for our existence. Only an explanation of how our bodies developed on this planet. Similarly any other explanation of how things develop in nature does not explain existence.

In what way does a theory that explain how we develop in nature miss out on explaining our existence, or are you trying to conflate the "how we exist" with the "why we exist" question.

__________________"If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

Because they cherry pick the parts of the New Testament written by authors who said the old law was nullified (ignoring the question of why their god would issue such horrifyingly evil edicts in the first place) and disregard the parts written by authors who claimed that the old law was still very much in effect.

You need to have a set of morals that are objective. Objective morals, by definition, wouldn't change with time.
Gibhor is claiming that morals have changed.
By his own argument, he's disproved the existence of God.

according to your world view, you cannot say, either its moral, or not.

Yes, we can. We can say this because homosexuals are human beings who are contributing members of society. We can say this because we use logic to recognize that homosexuality between responsible, consenting adults causes no harm to anyone and is simply part of the pursuit of happiness and well-being that makes for a healthy society. The Bible, on the other hand, was written by people who did not use logic to formulate and justify a morality for the purpose of maintaining a healthy, productive society, but rather declared their mindless bigotry to be the unimpeachable law of the universe, thus refusing to justify or take responsibility for their actions.

Quote:

What is the moral difference between killing your neighbour, and killing his cat ?

The difference is that we place a much higher value on the life of other human beings than on cats. Not that killing a neighbor's cat is not a disgusting action deserving of civil punishment, but killing another human being is an action that causes harm to the human community. It matters because we want to live in a society in which we can prosper and grow.

Quote:

according to your world view, none.

Are passive/aggressive smilies the best you can offer to defend your position?

The universe may be indifferent to our survival or extinction, but it matters to us because we want to survive. We want to know that, even though we as individuals will die, the human species will continue on after us. We survive as a social species. Together, we can achieve things that are impossible alone. We can prosper greatly when we work for each other.

The great joke of this thread is that you declare your god to be the ultimate source of objectively correct morality, then when we point out the positively evil edicts attributed to said god, you say, "You don't have to obey those evil laws any more". Your "objective" morality has changed.

__________________Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.

You need to have a set of morals that are objective. Objective morals, by definition, wouldn't change with time.
Gibhor is claiming that morals have changed.
By his own argument, he's disproved the existence of God.

Yep. The horrors of the Tanakh are an embarrassment to those who claim a gentle and loving god. Not that the central message of Christianity, "Love me or I will destroy you", is all that loving. At least some early Gnostic Christian groups, like the Marcionites, recognized this incompatibility and rejected the cruel god of Abraham.

__________________Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.

i know you have it easy to point out what you think you can use as justification to be against the bible. If i would be you, i would rather make a serious and unbiased bible study, then you will understand these issues in a other light.

There are no excuses for the Bible's command to kill young women for making their own sexual choices. There are no excuses for its directive to kill friends and family who suggest adopting other religious beliefs. There is no forgiving the Bible for declaring that slaves are property.

Quote:

You would be more convincing, if you would point out , what positive evidence you have for your case of strong atheism. Thats not so easy, isnt it ?

Joobz has not made a case for strong atheism.

__________________Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.

__________________Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.

If you can tell me ONE example of christian parents, that do this based on the teachings in the bible, i will answer your question.

That's the point. Don't you get it? Christian parents don't do what the god of the Bible declared to be just, because they employ their subjective moral judgement.

If YHWH's morality is objective, then why did he once command people to kill their daughters for having sex with their boyfriends?

__________________Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.

Yes, but that does not say anything about existence other than, that organic bodies and the materials they are made of appear to exist.

And yet that is existence... as it is.

__________________I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

That's the point. Don't you get it? Christian parents don't do what the god of the Bible declared to be just,

Of course not. you have no clue what you are talking about. We do not follow certain commandments, because they were for a specific situation, for a specific folk, at a specific time. We let ourselfs guide by the teachings of Jesus.......

Of course not. you have no clue what you are talking about. We do not follow certain commandments, because they were for a specific situation, for a specific folk, at a specific time. We let ourselfs guide by the teachings of Jesus.......

That is an amazingly stupid argument. What you've just described is subjective morality. You pick and choose what you want to follow from the Bible's edicts.

Byt the way, could you explain what it was about the specific situation, folk and time that made it morally just to own slaves, kill a woman for having sex, or kill friends or family who suggested that you join another religion? I'd really like to know, seeing as you have such an enormous, raging clue for the Bible.

__________________Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.

I am willing to learn. When I say my ears are open, I actually mean it. What experiment do you suggest in order to prove god's existence?

How about yours ? Or do you have something else than faith to present ?

I do not understand what you mean. Please explain.

Remember Gibhor, I have nothing to gain or lose by being shown to be wrong, except knowledge and experience. I am perfectly willing to be proved wrong. I am a human being, and humans are sometimes right, and sometimes wrong.

It would be silly, for me, to pretend to be 100% right, 100% of the time.

We do not follow certain commandments, because they were for a specific situation, for a specific folk, at a specific time.

Welcome to moral relativism.

__________________What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

both questions are dumb.
we have no evidence for god, and therefore have no way to presume one exists or doesn't exist.

__________________What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

You posted exactly the same statement before. When I provided the evidence, you had requested, you not only ignored my response, but you also explicitly stated that you were under no obligation to read what I had provided.

Of course the forum involves reading not hearing; perhaps you are trying to say that you are all ears, but no eyes? I thought that clever wording of lies to beguile people was the work of satan in your religion, not god.